| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RedKnight wrote: | | Han -shot- and greedo MAY have pulled the trigger as a muscle spasm when he died but thats about as far as it goes...as I often say to my friends when this comes up.....Han Solo was NOT a nice man! A good man, sure, but NOT nice. |
Nah, in the remake of that scene, you can clearly see Greedo firing first and missing at point blank range while Han fires just after Greedo does. I just rewatched that scene on my DVD less than 2 days ago. Lucas may have wanted this remake to make Han less of a stone-cold killer for the sake of Lucas' kids, but all it does is make Greedo, a hired thug of Jabba's (a crimelord who would have known better than to send a complete incompetent after his best smuggler), look stupid.
I've heard it said that in TFA, when Han grabs that Kanjiklub mook and shoves him towards the rathtar to buy himself and Chewie more time to run, that scene was J.J. Abrams' "inside commentary" on the whole "Han Shot First" controversy. RedKnight is absolutely correct: Han is NOT a nice guy and he won't hesitate to throw a bad guy in the line of fire if it will save his own skin. And let's face it: Greedo and that Kanjiklub mook were both gangsters and got what they deserved. More proof indeed that Han Solo is a perfect example of Good Is Not Nice.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10406
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going off on tangents in threads is normally not a big deal at the Pit, but since this thread is currently the only 'spoilers allowed' thread for Rogue One for the next couple days, I'd like to please ask that you either find existing threads or create new ones for TFA and Lucas-revision bash-fests.
Very nice. Thanks for sharing!
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | There is no need for a ship like this to have a ridiculous back story like a converted building. It bears far more resemblance to Separatist designs like the Providence-Class Carrier/Cruiser and the the Malevolence than it does any sort of planetary structure. I fail to see any rational reason why Disneylucas needs to give this thing such a poorly-thought-out backstory |
I quite agree that the Mon Cals covertly converting a building to a capital ship during Imperial occupation of their planet is just plain silly. Even constructing a building that is secretly a capital ship during Imperial occupation is wacky. The best possibility I can think of while sticking with a building idea is that before Imperial occupation, the starship had been created and then made to look like a building as an emergency alien invasion defense. As far as looking like a Separatist ship, perhaps some of the Separatist ships were designed by a separatist faction of the planet's population, and one of these designs was more conducive to being constructed on the surface of the planet and being disguised as a building.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16282
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just went and saw Rogue One again, and I paid close attention to the Battle of Scarif. I stand by my earlier assertion that the MC75 / Profundity was not a building, regardless of what Disneylucas says. There is no evidence of a foundation, or any sort of structure for which it to integrate with the ground, and the design would require extensive modification for it to do so (note the tapered ends and the dorsal and ventral fins).
By design, a "building" designed like this would have to balance its entire weight on the ventral "command" spire, and would have extremely constricted access at ground level (all traffic funneled through the ventral fin). Any other orientation would put the ship's internal decks at odds with local gravity fields.
On top of that, there is also the ventral bay, where the Tantive IV is docked. A bay that size would require extensive modification of the existing structure, or would need to be designed into the structure in the first place. Why anyone would need a docking bay large enough for a Corellian Corvette in a building is beyond me.
My solution would likely be something along the lines of the "building" aspect being part of a cover to divert funds and material to the ship's construction by having it labeled as a civil engineering project: it was never a building, but all of the official paperwork says that's exactly what it is.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Just went and saw Rogue One again, and I paid close attention to the Battle of Scarif. I stand by my earlier assertion that the MC75 / Profundity was not a building, regardless of what Disneylucas says. There is no evidence of a foundation, or any sort of structure for which it to integrate with the ground, and the design would require extensive modification for it to do so (note the tapered ends and the dorsal and ventral fins).
By design, a "building" designed like this would have to balance its entire weight on the ventral "command" spire, and would have extremely constricted access at ground level (all traffic funneled through the ventral fin). Any other orientation would put the ship's internal decks at odds with local gravity fields.
On top of that, there is also the ventral bay, where the Tantive IV is docked. A bay that size would require extensive modification of the existing structure, or would need to be designed into the structure in the first place. Why anyone would need a docking bay large enough for a Corellian Corvette in a building is beyond me.
My solution would likely be something along the lines of the "building" aspect being part of a cover to divert funds and material to the ship's construction by having it labeled as a civil engineering project: it was never a building, but all of the official paperwork says that's exactly what it is. |
I give a +1 to all of this. The idea of the "official paperwork" stating that the MC75 is a building in order to disguise its construction makes alot of sense to me. Especially if RO happens while Dac is still under Imperial occupation at 0 BBY (something that I'm wondering if it's canon or Legend continuity now).
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10406
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I quite agree that the Mon Cals covertly converting a building to a capital ship during Imperial occupation of their planet is just plain silly. Even constructing a building that is secretly a capital ship during Imperial occupation is wacky. The best possibility I can think of while sticking with a building idea is that before Imperial occupation, the starship had been created and then made to look like a building as an emergency alien invasion defense. As far as looking like a Separatist ship, perhaps some of the Separatist ships were designed by a separatist faction of the planet's population, and one of these designs was more conducive to being constructed on the surface of the planet and being disguised as a building. |
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Just went and saw Rogue One again, and I paid close attention to the Battle of Scarif. I stand by my earlier assertion that the MC75 / Profundity was not a building, regardless of what Disneylucas says. There is no evidence of a foundation, or any sort of structure for which it to integrate with the ground, and the design would require extensive modification for it to do so (note the tapered ends and the dorsal and ventral fins).
By design, a "building" designed like this would have to balance its entire weight on the ventral "command" spire, and would have extremely constricted access at ground level (all traffic funneled through the ventral fin). Any other orientation would put the ship's internal decks at odds with local gravity fields...
My solution would likely be something along the lines of the "building" aspect being part of a cover to divert funds and material to the ship's construction by having it labeled as a civil engineering project: it was never a building, but all of the official paperwork says that's exactly what it is. |
Yes, the paperwork. But the ship could have also been constructed down on the planet inside of a big building. The ship would not have to balance its entire weight on the ventral "command" spire, and would not have to have extremely constricted access at ground level with all traffic funneled through the ventral fin. Buildings are not just above the ground level - "Buildings" go underground too. There could have been a "well" dug out for ventral spire to go down into the ground, and the ship could have even been half-underground resting on a metal structure molded to shape of the ventral side of the ship. The building could then completely encase the ship all the way around and look like just a building on the surface. Some of the insides of the "building" could have possibly used some of the inside of the ship itself with access through airlocks and docking bays. When the ship first blasted off, the building could have been shed, revealing only the starship.
So I agree that the ship was never a building itself, but the building could have existed around the ship and also used some of the inside of the ship. But the combo-structure was always a starship first and foremost, with the outer "building" aspect probably completely destroyed when the ship came out of hiding.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | On top of that, there is also the ventral bay, where the Tantive IV is docked. A bay that size would require extensive modification of the existing structure, or would need to be designed into the structure in the first place. Why anyone would need a docking bay large enough for a Corellian Corvette in a building is beyond me. |
You mean like the size of the Imperial Star Destroyer docking bay? Maybe the Profundity had a docking bay large enough for a Corellian Corvette to tractor smaller ships into it and more easily board them for attack or rescue.
Or the docking bay could have originally been to hold a Calamarian ship of a similar size for the purpose of hiding a ship inside of another ship to deceive enemies. I can see tactical advantage in some cases for an enemy to think they are just facing a Mon Cal star cruiser only to be surprised to find out another capital ship has been suddenly added to the equation. Or maybe it could be for a purpose closer to what was shown in the film - So someone could escape from a losing capital ship battle in a small capital ship the enemy did not know was even there. A small capital ship might have a better chance of escaping a battle before getting destroyed than a starfighter-scale ship, in some cases. Or maybe all of the above.
| Sutehp wrote: | | Especially if RO happens while Dac is still under Imperial occupation at 0 BBY (something that I'm wondering if it's canon or Legend continuity now). |
The general Imperial subjugation of Dac is still canon. I can't imagine the Profundity being secretly constructed inside this building during Imperial occupation without the Empire knowing (Why would the Empire just ignore a giant building?). So the only thing that makes sense to me is that the ship was already completely constructed before the Empire (or at least almost finished). The purpose of hiding a ship in a building could have been defense against possible alien planetary invasions in general, or specifically for the Empire after they rose, knowing that they may someday invade. The ship was likely built in secrecy unbeknownst to most of the population of the planet, which could of been how the Empire never discovered it. It could have been a secret Calamarian government project sanctioned by planetary leaders or even by a cabal without the leaders' knowledge. Maybe the polar Mon Cals in RO thought the rest of the Mon Cals were too peaceful so had this built without their knowledge before the Empire invaded.
Dac could have overthrown its Imperial oppressors before the events of RO. Perhaps this secret ship was instrumental in defeating the Empire, and then Dac joined the Alliance.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, for the Mon Calamari, what's the difference between a "building" and a "submarine"?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | So, for the Mon Calamari, what's the difference between a "building" and a "submarine"? |
One is built to be above ground and stationary, the other is made to submerge beneath the ocean and is mobile.
That sort of thing works on every planet, not just Dac. 
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
building could mean underwater and stationary....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | So, for the Mon Calamari, what's the difference between a "building" and a "submarine"? |
| Sutehp wrote: | One is built to be above ground and stationary, the other is made to submerge beneath the ocean and is mobile.
That sort of thing works on every planet, not just Dac. |
| jmanski wrote: | | building could mean underwater and stationary.... |
True as you tell it, jmanski. The thing about a building being stationary is...it's not meant to, y'know, move. Starships and submersibles, by definition, are meant to go from place to place, which is the opposite of stationary.
But yes, you're quite right, a building can be submerged in the SWU. There are plenty of examples of underwater buildings. Hell, the underwater facility in Hideouts & Strongholds would be a dime a dozen on Dac, I'm sure.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ninjaxenomorph
Lieutenant
Joined: 02 Jun 2014
Posts: 92
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You know, I think a Rogue One+Rebels combined sourcebook would be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ninjaxenomorph wrote: | | You know, I think a Rogue One+Rebels combined sourcebook would be useful. |
While it might be nice to have both of those things in the same place in theory, I don't see the commonality of themes that would justify putting both things in the same book. That would be like combining the Dark Side sourcebook with, say, the Gamblers and Scoundrels book. Yes, Rebels and Rogue One both deal with the early Rebellion, but that's about all they would have in common.
And while combining sourcebooks does have precedent with the three Thrawn Trilogy books all being bound in one later volume, all three books were part of the same storyline written by the same author (namely Timothy Zahn). Not to mention that each sourcebook came out one by one in conjunction with its own companion novel. Once the trilogy of novels was complete, it only made sense to publish the trilogy sourcebook to have all the Thrawn WEG stuff in the same place.
But Rebels and Rogue One are different stories in different mediums with different creators and different writers and completely different themes. Rebels has two Jedi while Rogue One was specifically written to not include Jedi, since it was a story about ordinary people who had to fight the Empire after the Jedi were gone. That alone argues against combining the two: the themes would clash completely.
So, no, I can't see the justification for combining these two stories in the same volume. (Not to mention all the extra work that would entail.)
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10406
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sutehp wrote: | | Ninjaxenomorph wrote: | | You know, I think a Rogue One+Rebels combined sourcebook would be useful. |
While it might be nice to have both of those things in the same place in theory, I don't see the commonality of themes that would justify putting both things in the same book. That would be like combining the Dark Side sourcebook with, say, the Gamblers and Scoundrels book. Yes, Rebels and Rogue One both deal with the early Rebellion, but that's about all they would have in common...
But Rebels and Rogue One are different stories in different mediums with different creators and different writers and completely different themes. Rebels has two Jedi while Rogue One was specifically written to not include Jedi, since it was a story about ordinary people who had to fight the Empire after the Jedi were gone. That alone argues against combining the two: the themes would clash completely.
So, no, I can't see the justification for combining these two stories in the same volume. (Not to mention all the extra work that would entail.) |
I completely agree with not mixing these two. And besides, they are already separated. Shootingwomprats has already made Rebels sourcebooks per season. No need to shoehorn Rogue One into those.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ninjaxenomorph
Lieutenant
Joined: 02 Jun 2014
Posts: 92
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I didn't know about those until several minutes after I had posted. In my defense, there is more overlap beyond 'takes place over the same time period', the next two-parter of Rebels is dealing with Saw Gererra. And, if I've pieced everything together from what I've read, getting a nasty dose of insecticide that leaves him in the condition he was in on Jedha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ninjaxenomorph wrote: | | Well, I didn't know about those until several minutes after I had posted. In my defense, there is more overlap beyond 'takes place over the same time period', the next two-parter of Rebels is dealing with Saw Gererra. And, if I've pieced everything together from what I've read, getting a nasty dose of insecticide that leaves him in the condition he was in on Jedha. |
Yeah, I can't wait to see that Rebels episode with Saw Guerra (however you spell his last name!). It's awesome that Forest Whitaker is going to voice Saw in this episode, too, after playing him in Rogue One. Just three more days!
Also, did anyone else find it eerie that in Rogue One when Saw breathes through his breath mask he sounds just like Darth Vader?
More machine than man, indeed.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10406
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ninjaxenomorph wrote: | | In my defense, there is more overlap beyond 'takes place over the same time period', the next two-parter of Rebels is dealing with Saw Gererra. And, if I've pieced everything together from what I've read, getting a nasty dose of insecticide that leaves him in the condition he was in on Jedha. |
Rebels brought back TCW characters like Snips, Rex and Hondo because it can. Rebels will include Rogue One characters because it can now. It doesn't mean that Rebels is likewise significant to Rogue One. Rebels stuff was put in Rogue One as Easter eggs only and it was of absolutely no consequence to Rogue One at all.
One of the most important differences Sutehp said was medium. Mixing live action images and animated images into a sourcebook is extremely unappealing visually. But perhaps the most important difference is, live action films are primary franchise, and cartoon TV is secondary.
If you are able to enjoy Rebels so much that you feel it fits seamlessly into the same universe as the live action films, then I truly do envy you. Rebels has some cool ideas and neat stuff sometimes. I just can't get past ridiculous little things like hyperspace whales, flying helicopter lightsabers and a padawan of a padawan cutting through the outer hull of a star destroyer like it's butter. In execution, Rebels often looks to me like a childish kiddie cartoon version of Star Wars, like Lego Star Wars is. There is just so much stuff in Rebels that I can't imagine existing in the same reality of the live action films. Putting it together with Rogue One is like oil and water. Now a devoted Rebels sourcebook with entries for the Rogue One characters that appear in Rebels (with their cartoon images)? I'm all for that.
| Sutehp wrote: | Also, did anyone else find it eerie that in Rogue One when Saw breathes through his breath mask he sounds just like Darth Vader?
More machine than man, indeed. |
Yeah, for some reason I was reminded that the original inspiration for Darth Vader being a cyborg was the Star Wars Rough Draft character Kane Starkiller (who eventually became the non-cyborg Obi-Wan). I feel some of Saw goes back to some of the same inspiration for Vader.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
